Interdisciplinarity and Archaeology by Laura Coltofean-Arizancu Margarita Díaz-Andreu

Author:Laura Coltofean-Arizancu, Margarita Díaz-Andreu [Laura Coltofean-Arizancu, Margarita Díaz-Andreu]
Language: eng
Format: epub
Tags: Nonfiction, Social & Cultural Studies, Social Science, Archaeology, History, European General
ISBN: 9781789254679
Publisher: Oxbow Books
Published: 2021-03-15T04:00:00+00:00

Conclusions

In 1934, Adolf Mahr referred to the ongoing work of the CQR as a ‘fine scientific achievement, linking up, as it does, different branches of learning which normally follow very different lines’ (Mahr 1934a, 138). In his opinion it would result in ‘a vastly improved conception of the appearance of the country in the past’ (Mahr 1934b, 138). While Mahr may be overstating the possibilities for archaeology in this interdisciplinary research at that time, his desire to integrate the natural sciences into archaeology in the 1930s was an innovative one. While Lagore crannóg may have been the poster site in terms of a burgeoning interdisciplinarity and a case study in the developing complexity of archaeological practice in the Irish Free State in the 1930s, Hencken himself was ill-equipped to integrate the diverse information accumulated and to provide a holistic interpretation based on the data. The Lagore report is reminiscent of a nineteenth-century museum catalogue, whereby artefacts are grouped together according to the material from which they were made. When Hencken’s paper was published, the American anthropologist William Duncan Strong described it as ‘a fascinating subject with a rich content’ but was critical of it because ‘the paper under review had no outline of subject matter, no list of figures or plates, no index, nor general conclusions’. He praised the maps and diagrams Hencken presented ‘despite the fact that water, human detritus, and clear delineations do not go well together’ (Strong 1953, 732–733). In a general comment on the crannóg excavations, Fredengren suggests that ‘the rich excavations imposed such a burden of information that an understanding of the nature of the sites was nearly impossible to reach’ (Fredengren 2002, 50). Brian Fagan (2005, 161) also criticised this tendency to be descriptive because it meant that there was little attempt to explain the meaning of the archaeological record. During the 1930s the focus of American archaeology was continued improvements of field methods and excavations and the careful recovery of artefacts and features. The period between 1914 and 1940 in American archaeology is described as the ‘Classificatory-Historical Period’ (Willey and Sabloff 1980, 83–84). The structure and descriptive nature of the Lagore report reflects the fact that the excavator was an American archaeologist. Lagore, as well as Ballinderry 1 and Ballinderry 2 crannógs, served as templates for future work on wetland sites in the Irish Free State. These reports are still very important to modern archaeologists and their dating, structure and artefactual assemblages are still discussed and reinterpreted (Lynn 1985–1986, 69–73; Johnson 1999, 23–71; Newman 2002, 99–123; Guglielmi 2014, 12–19). This can only happen because of the accurate recording of information and the clear presentation of the data contained in the Harvard Mission crannóg reports which have stood the testament of time. Chris Lynn (1985–1986, 73) paid tribute to the excavators, expressing his optimism that in the future ‘more plausible interpretations can be offered without encountering any logical impasse in the data’. In its theoretical approaches, wetland archaeology in general ‘retains a strong empirical, functionalist core’ (Van de Noort and O’Sullivan 2006, 10).

Download

Copyright Disclaimer:
This site does not store any files on its server. We only index and link to content provided by other sites. Please contact the content providers to delete copyright contents if any and email us, we'll remove relevant links or contents immediately.